Presentation given at the 2nd International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org Copyright by Aaron Ahuvia

1. Aaron Ahuvia
University of Michigan-Dearborn
Interpersonal Primacy and Templates
in Consumer-Brand Relationships

2. INTRODUCTION

3. The scope of relationships we
study
Fiske (1991) 4 types of human relationships
Aggerwal
– Exchange relationships
– Communal relationships
Any ongoing series of interactions is a relationship, and
fair game for us to study
– What are their rules and expectations?
– How do relationship types fit together into a whole
system?
– When will each type be the most relevant?
But . . .

4. Relationships & relationships
What makes what we have to say really
interesting?
– Dog bites man
• buyers have exchange relationships with sellers
– Man bites Dog
• consumers have communal relationships with
brands

5. Ironically, it is the primacy of
interpersonal relationships that
makes CBRs interesting
It is because nothing matters more to people
than other people, that the idea of
consumers having quasi-interpersonal
relationships with brands is powerful

6. AND THAT MAKES BRAND
LOVE SO VERY INTERESTING
A shameless plug for my work

7. Attack of the giant construct
Brand
Love
Passion-driven
Behaviors
Willingness
to Invest
Resources
Passionate Desire
to Use
Things
Done Past
(involvnt.)
Self-Brand
Integration
Life Meaning
Desired Self-
identity
Current Self-
identity
Attit. Strength 1:
Frequent Thoughts
Positive Emotional Connection
Intuitive Fit
Emotional
Attachment
Positive
Affect
Long-term Relationship
Anticipated Negative Affect
Overall Attitude Valence
Attit. Strength 2:
Certainty/Confidence

8. Why so big?
Not just another pretty face
Love has a unique place in western culture
– Love as a theme in music, drama, art, etc.
– People are often willing to die (and kill) for
love
– Love is sacred
• Some people are offended by “brand love”, but
• not offended by love of country, art, freedom or
God
– Not only do people love God, but many
claim that God is love

9. Love is a summational category
For the psychological processes that lead to
attraction and relationship maintenance
– Murstein (1988) found a single factor
underlying love which encompasses all the
good things one can think of another
– Love sumarizes all the most normatively
positive aspects of relationships
Brand love is the ultimate “man
bites dog” story

10. INTERPERSONAL PRIMACY
HYPOTHESIS
Often unstated, it underlies much of our work

11. Nothing matters as much to
people, as other people
altruistic concern for other people
having the “right” relationships with
the right people
– close relationships
– the respect of strangers
– and even being feared by competitors
If you trace consumer motivations back
far enough, you will almost always
bump into another person

12. What about materialists . . .
who substitute brands for interpersonal
relationships?
– Those aren’t materialists, those are lonely
people
“Mater” = worldly
Materialists use brands to structure their
social relationships in hierarchical ways

13. Nothing matters as much to
people, as other people
Evolutionary roots
Bourdieu
Ayne Rand
– even a broken clock is right twice a day
Fournier (2009) notes that CBRs are often
the byproduct of attempts to for IPRs, such
as joining consumption communities

14. THE INTERPERSONAL
TEMPLATES HYPOTHESIS
The Interpersonal-Communal Relationship Templates Hypothesis
aka

15. IPRs are so basic to human psychology,
that they lurk in the background of
CBRs
Mental templates include
– Schemas
– Scripts
– Prototypes
– Cultural models
– Relationship contract
– Etc.

16. Four main responses
– Yes
– No -- CBRs have their own types and their
own rules
– Sometimes -- our job is to find out when and
why
– Sort of -- people start with interpersonal
relationship models and then adjust for
brands

17. Brand Love
A definite case of “sort of”
People decide if they love a brand by using a
prototype matching hypothesis (i.e. the duck
test)
The prototype comes from some situationally
relevant form of interpersonal love
Which is then adjusted to the brand context, e.g.
• lack of responsiveness
• unconditional very conditional love

18. DOES FOCUSING ON
RELATIVELY COMMUNAL
RELATIONSHIP MODELS
OVERLY CONSTRAIN OF OUR
WORK?

19. If we look at CBRs as including
communal and exchange
relationships, we’ll always be
relevant
On the other hand
– High involvement relationships are a pretty
big area
– Our models may extend beyond their original
context

20. Brand love predicting
WOM/loyalty/resistance to neg.
Loved brand
R2 = .61
Mundane brand
R2 = .63
Brand
Love
Passion-driven
Behaviors
Willingness
to Invest
Resources
Passionate Desire
to Use
Things
Done Past
(involvnt.)
Self-Brand
Integration
Life Meaning
Desired Self-
identity
Current Self-
identity
Attit. Strength 1:
Frequent Thoughts
Positive Emotional Connection
Intuitive Fit
Emotional
Attachment
Positive
Affect
Long-term Relationship
Anticipated Negative Affect
Overall Attitude Valence
Attit. Strength 2:
Certainty/Confidence

21. Where to from here?
Communal
relationships
Exchange
relationships
Brand
relationships
You are here
Needed to
provide context
Interpersonal
relationships in
marketing
contexts
Low hanging
fruit
Not so
interesting right
now

22. Interpersonal relationships in
marketing contexts
Sales people
– Dyadic interpersonal relationships
– Organization-to-organization relationships
Service providers
– Doctors, matchmakers and social support
Highly involved customer collaboration on
innovation

23. RESEARCH IDEAS

24. When will templates matter?
Will interpersonal relationship templates
(schemas, scripts, relationship contracts,
prototypes, etc.) be more influential in more
communal CBRs?

25. A rose by any other name . . ..
Does it matter if a consumer uses an
interpersonal metaphor to describe their
relationship with a brand?
– How much?
– When?
– Why?
Sternberg’s commitment includes a
declaration of love

26. Attachment
Attachment styles are based on the default
models people have for relationships
– Is consumer attachment style primarily a
function of their interpersonal attachment
style?
– Or do consumers have a separate model for
CBRs?
• Paulssen and Fournier (2008)

27. Persons and personification
Do brand personification such as mascots,
celebrities, and founders increase
communal(ish) CBRs?
– Theology again
What about relationships with employees?
– Individual sales or service people?
– Typical sales or service people from a
company?

28. Consumer or customer BRs?
Customers includes B2B
– B2B relationships tend to be more long term
and intense then typical consumer-brand
relationships
– There is a large literature on B2B
relationships to build on
How do B2B CBRs compare to B2C CBRs?

29. Managerial outcomes of CBRs
We know in general terms that stronger CBRs
lead to better managerial outcomes
We need a much more theory driven account
of how specific aspects of CBRs lead to
specific managerial outcomes, such as:
– Loyalty/increased volume
– Expanding brand usage to new products
– Advocacy/WOM
– Resistance to negative information
– Willingness to pay a price premium

30. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ON
ETHICS
How does relationship type impact ethical obligations?

31. Ethics & relationships
Ethical responsibilities vary with the nature
and closeness of the relationship
Where do customers belong?
Family Friends Community Strangers Competitors Enemies

32. Are (some) marketers the devil
incarnate?
The devil we know
– Charming
– Keeps the letter of agreements
– Deceives while speaking the literal truth
– Leads us into temptation
Sound like anyone you know?

33. Are (some) marketers the devil
incarnate?
“Opportunism – “self-interest seeking with
guile” – is the global norm governing
commercial exchange relations (Williamson
1975); relational norms supersede
opportunism to enhance interdependent
relationships (MacNeil 1980).”
– Fournier 2009

34. CBRs & SWB?
How do CBRs relate to materialism and
SWB?
– The Meaning of Things

35. Questions?

36. RESEARCH IDEAS POT LUCK